I am not suggesting that one Society can not impose its will in certain areas on another. In that sense, conquerors certainly alter other societies. Whether they should try to alter those aspects of another society, which reflect the personalities of the population, however, is entirely an other question. No where did I suggest that Saddam was something that sprang naturally from the Iraqi persona. On the contrary, I would deny that there is such a thing. Saddam was an evil Socialist despot. I have no sympathy for his regime. That is entirely another issue.
But for us to try to impose Westminster forms on the multi-national creature that is Iraq is the sheerest foolishness. You need only look at the British experiment in trying to Anglicize the Irish--who are much more similar to the British than the Kurds are to some of their southern Iraqi neighbors--to understand what happens, after the conquerors finally go home.
That you do not see the possibility that Democracy is being imposed, in some instances, I think is because you are ignoring the fact that peoples have different social structures, which function in ways that are not consistent with universal suffrage. To level a society, and make everyone, whether a "chief or indian" have the same political clout, is not the inherently fair idea that some would suggest. (Note, I will not impute that idea to you.)
The reason Democracy does not usually work in the Third World is the same reason that the Third World is not as advanced as the First. The same aptitudes that make people able to act responsibly politically, enable people to progress in other ways.
However, even peoples as bright and independent spirited as the early Americans, can certainly appreciate the limitations and disadvantages of "Democracy." Hence they chose a Republic. We did not have anything even close to universal male suffrage until the age of Jackson, 52 years after the Revolution.
William Flax
Yes, it is. It is a question that we in the U.S.A. (not by a huge majority but by a majority) have decided in the affirmative, regarding Iraq.
No where did I suggest that Saddam was something that sprang naturally from the Iraqi persona.
Good. Then to argue for ousting Saddam can entail no "disrespect" for that persona, as we both agree that there is no essential link between the two.
But for us to try to impose Westminster forms on the multi-national creature that is Iraq is the sheerest foolishness.
I understand that to be your opinion and happen not to agree with it. (At least if my educated guess about the meaning of "Westminster forms" is close enough. A Google search was not very helpful.) Anything else?
You need only look at the British experiment in trying to Anglicize the Irish--who are much more similar to the British than the Kurds are to some of their southern Iraqi neighbors--to understand what happens, after the conquerors finally go home.
Nobody is trying to "Anglicize" the Iraqians. (I hope.)
That you do not see the possibility that Democracy is being imposed, in some instances, I think is because you are ignoring the fact that peoples have different social structures, which function in ways that are not consistent with universal suffrage.
If people have slaves, and their tradition is that slaves have no say in matters, and then I allow for those slaves to vote on something - then I'm "imposing democracy". That kind of thing? Yes, I can see that.
But, in this hypothetical, we are "imposing democracy" on whom? The slave?